I dunno man, there are so many possibilities for themes for each intro pack.
I for sure don't think one intro pack will be about double face cards, and I don't think there will be a double face card in any of the intro packs. If there aren't any in ISD, there probably won't be any here, and the cover card for the R/G intro pack does NOT look like a werewolf. It is too red and devily to me. I haven't seen any werewolves have fire all over their hands either.
So this is what I think. There are 2 new mechanics right? At least I think there is going to be 2, so that means, 2 of the 5 will each be based on each of the 2 mechanics. I think there is going to be one based off devils, and demons as a whole, and another one based off zombies. The last one is probably based off the humans' dark side, if you know what I mean. If there were a werewolf one, the deck needs 0 DFCs in it, as adding DFCs into intro decks just doesn't cut it.
Sorry guys, but I don't think there is going to be a werewolf Intro Pack, since you can't separate the word Werewolf with Double Face Card in this block.
Another proof that the R/G is NOT a werewolf deck is the fact that there isn't a werewolf on the cover, unless it is a werewolf all day, all night deck, then I highly doubt it, considering how the coloration of the card frame shows that it is the day side, rather than the night side, and if you look closely, that card isn't even a DFC at all. If it were a werewolf, and by that picture, that card doesn't even remotely resemble a human at all, then the card borders should be darker, to reflect the night side of the double face card. As I said, they won't showcase a non-werewolf in a werewolf deck.
I think that some of you associating the R/G deck to be a werewolf deck for the sole fact that it is R/G and that werewolves are R/G. Remember that all werewolf decks are R/G and all R/G decks aren't werewolf decks.
They're planning to introduce a new super-mythic rarity and reprint the Titans, but only costing four this time. This is because Wizards' accounts department research found that there is still room for some power creep in creatures, and magic design is a pendulum that swings in certain ways but which always swings back, or something.
... and make it foil only, and printed only with the foil sheet lol.
The thing about this announcement that caught my eye is Ryan Miller is on the Design Team. I mean, it's freakin RYAN MILLER. I mean, the Buffalo Sabres goalie working for WOTC? No freakin way!!!
"Magic Designer by day, Goalie by night"
Which gives me an idea for a DFC... hmmmm.
Before you say anything, yes, I know it's a different Ryan Miller, so you can sit down now.
... unless I am missing something about "yeah um we are celebrating 8th edition as the 10th anniversary, but since we didn't release a core set in the summer of 2002..." Then the whole M13 being the so called "20th anniversary", which it isn't, would make sense. It makes no sense to celebrate a set released July 2003 as the 10th anniversary, but a set released in July 2012 as the 20th anniversary. It isn't consistent.
Considering they have a plati... ahem urban camoflage looking logo, it is looking like they are going to celebrate their twenti.. ahem nineteenth birthday.
Please dont give us announcements with such little to talk about anymore. Do you see what has happened? My head hurts from an extensive argument I wasnt even involved in. If you wouldve just given us a little something more to run with....
Thanks for nothing!
They would have to have an Announcing M13 announcement anyway, at least it is out of the way, and we don't have to worry about it. When I first saw it, I was like YEAAAHHH M13, I ALREADY KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE M13 YEAAAAH, then I kept staring at the logo and wondering why a the color was grey, and realized that it could have something to do with magic being 20 years old, then looked at the 10th anniversary, which was 8th edition release, which was released in 2003, and looked at the release date of M13, which says 2012, and I was like, wait a minute... Then I got anal over people claiming that M13 celebrates the 20th anniversary, because it doesn't.
At least we should be celebrating M13 as the fifteenth core set to be released haha. If you count Alpha and Beta as separate core sets. If you count Alpha and Beta as one core set, then M14 would be a bigger celebration, since it is 20 years of magic, and the 15th core set to be released.
I stand corrected, but they still didn't do it just because the other companies did. They all did it because it's just good business. You can understand why I didn't think much of your repeated citations of other companies while dismissing the core reason?
I only used the yugioh and MLB comparisons just because they were released in Q1 of the year, to show you, that if MTG core sets were to be released in Q1, they would use the year that it is released in rather than the year after. That was what I was trying to say, because releasing a product that is one year ahead during Q1 is bad business practice.
I created a model as to what WOTC would have named the sets if it were released, and that is, Current year before July 1, and next year after and including July 1. I don't know if that's the model that everybody uses, but considering I don't have any data points for stuff released April, May or June, I don't have a say in Q2. If something were to be released Q2, it is up to the company as to what they want to do with the product.
Where the other companies come in is based on the fact that just like WOTC, they are using the same model because of good business practice. So using sports games, and Yugioh, I can create a hypothetical situation as to what WOTC would have named core sets if they released them in April for example.
I mentioned that Yugioh starter deck Dawn of the XYZ set prefix is called YS11 when it was released July 2011, while it would make sense to call it YS12. The fact is, the Japanese version was released March 2011, and changing its name would confuse the consumer and would make the consumer think that Starter Deck Dawn of the xyz correlated to Starter Deck 2012, while in reality, it is based off Starter Deck 2011. That is the exception to the rule. It's like saying a baseball game with the season starting early in the year saying MLB 12 is released in July in another region, does not make that game MLB 13. The game is still MLB 12. You don't change the year number when you port an existing game to a different system, or make another localization of an existing game, despite it releasing near the end of the year, while the original was released in the beginning of the year.
Alright, good, you're finally addressing an actual point. I'll give you Q1, because that's close enough to the beginning of the year and you're quite right about a "2012" product expiring in Feburary 2012, but do you really think that argument applies to Q2? Especially June, which was you original example? Also, my point is that they have actual reasons for doing this beyond "that's how it is" which is what you seemed to be arguing. Of course we have no idea how they'd do it at any other point in the year, but I still maintain that citing examples from completely unrelated companies is shakey evidence at best and should not be used, as you have used it, as though it were self explanatory and needed no furthur justification.
By the way, I edited my post, so you should re-read it.
As I recall, WOTC got the coreset annual naming conventions from Madden NFL video game series, and car companies, so don't go telling me that what unrelated companies do, aka a sports video game company, and a car company, doesn't affect what WOTC does, because in fact, it did. They also said something about this naming convention being industry standard? Perhaps you have heard of it?
I'd like to point out on the subject of the 20th anniversary that platinum is the symbol for the 20th year. As we can all see the Magic the gathering name has been changed from the normal black to platinum.
Someone should really make a cake for the release of M13 core set that says "Happy nineteenth anniversary", then the staff of WOTC realizes that it is indeed 19 years of magic, and then they get embarrassed for celebrating a 19th anniversary with a bunch of 20s everywhere in the room. Sort of like how we all screwed up and celebrated the turn of the millennium when 1999 ended and 2000 started, but the fact is, that 0AD never existed, and the first AD year is 1 AD, so 2000 year later would be 2001, which is the actual year that is the turn of the millennium.
I understand perfectly. The only reason I thought I didn't understand was because your thought processes make no sense. But I get it! You think that because several products made by several different countries attach years to their names, they all must opperate on the same naming convention. I don't know why you think this, and I'd probably prefer not to know.
Why 2010 when we're in the middle of 2009? Because the set sells during both 2009 and 2010. If we label it 2009, we would have a huge problem selling it in 2010. People respond very negatively to new things that sound as if they are old things. The car companies figured this out long ago, and we are following in their well-paved path. That is how the name for Magic 2010 came about.
FFS, the policy they say the use only APPLIES TO A PRODUCT RELEASED IN FREAKIN JULY. The above thing that MARO said applies to core sets that are RELEASED IN JULY, and the fact is, they don't care to explain how they would name a core set if they released it in April, because the fact is, CORE SETS ARE WILL NEVER BE RELEASED IN ANY OTHER MONTH OTHER THAN IN JULY.
What they said would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT if it were released in APRIL, considering that a Magic 2010 would only be in 2010 for only 3 months, and someone buying a Magic 2010 in May 2010, which is pretty close to the middle of the year with still more than half a year to go, would feel ripped off when the newest product is actually Magic 2011, and Magic 2010 is no longer standard legal.
So what do I do? I give examples of other products, not made by WOTC, that also have the annual naming conventions, and so far, anything released Q1 will have the same year attached to the name, and anything released Q3 and Q4 will have one year ahead attached to its name. I can't saying anything for Q2, which is April, May, June, but that is how other companies do it. That article says NOTHING about how they would name a core set if they were to release it in either Q1 or Q2 of the calendar year.
This, is why you don't get it. You seem to apply that article to a product that is released any time of the year, but that article only has a July release in mind. Do the same crap to a product released in February 20th every year, and the consumer would be angry for playing a product that will expire just when they bought it.
I don't have a say for anything released in Q2 of the year, but anything released in June can have the current year or the next year attached to it, depending if the company wants the product to feel new, or if they don't want customers to feel ripped off for buying an old product when there is already a newer one released. If it was released in April or May, for sure, they should be using the current year rather than the next year. Maybe that's why there is not a lot of "annual" products released during Q2 is because they don't have to figure out which year to use.
One realization we came to as we examined our core sets was that our naming convention itself was probably more than a little scary to newer players. "Tenth Edition? I'm already nine editions behind? Do I need to start with the first edition?" Showing our age on the front of the box is not a great tactic for enticing people to try out a "new" game. To solve this problem, we took a page from car makers and the aforementioned Madden NFL video game franchise and are naming core sets after years—specifically the year after the product is released. That means this July's release will be called the Magic: The Gathering 2010 Core Set, or Magic 2010 for short. Heck, you can go even shorter than that if you like, calling it by what appears in the expansion symbol: "M10."
Is it odd that the product is not named for the year it was released in? A bit, but that's industry standard. It is more important that the product feel newer longer than for it to be accurate for six months and then seem outdated immediately thereafter. Trust me, you'll get used to it.
Again, this article only affects products released in Q3, that is July, August, September of the calendar year. It has no bearing to what happens when it is released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.
So you were saying that what other companies do does not affect WOTC's core set naming policy? LOLWUT?
I wouldn't say the same for this year's NBA season though haha.
Back to what I was saying. A lot of products have the product name followed by the year on it, and Magic core sets aren't the only products that use this naming convention, which somebody here doesn't even get.
EA sports and 2k sports attach years to their sports video games to denote the year the season of that particular sport is played in. Yugioh did the same thing with their starter decks, such as starter deck 2011, to show that the product is pretty much the starter deck is the latest one.
So this is how it goes.
Yugioh Gold series 2011 released in January 2011
Yugioh Starter Deck 2011 released in March 2011
MLB 2k11 released March 2011
MLB 11: The Show released March 2011
Past midyear mark
NCAA football 12 released July 2011
Magic 2012 core set released July 2011
Madden 12 released August 2011
NHL 12 released September 2011
FIFA 12 released September-October 2011
NBA 2k12 released October 2011
So as I said, releasing an annual product every february and naming it one year ahead is the stupidest idea, just because "it makes it more new". No it doesn't. It makes the consumer think that the product will be active for most of the year that the product says it is. If the next product were to replace it, let's say Magic 2015 replaced Magic 2014 in February 2014, then the consumers would feel ripped off that they bought an old product disguised as a new product.
If you don't get it, imagine this sceanario. Core sets are released February. It is now April of that same year. You buy Magic 2014 thinking that it is the newest product, but NOPE, M14 is no longer standard legal, and you should be buying M15, despite it being the year 2014. This scenario wouldn't ring true if the product were to be released Q3 and Q4 of that year, since a 2015 product in 2014 would be only be there for less than half a year, and the fact that the product is active for most of the year that the product says it is the year of.
Also someone's article only mentions the naming convention when the product is being released in July, and what they say ONLY MAKES SENSE FOR A PRODUCT RELEASED IN JULY. Release it in February, and that argument of "hey, they product would feel so new", wouldn't make sense anymore. Hence why products with a year attached to the name released in January, February, and March use the same year that the product is released in. I haven't seen any annual product released in Q2 of the calendar year, so I can't say anything about that.
The only reason why the article says what it says is because M10 will be in store shelves for more than half of 2010, and less than half of 2009, so the product wouldn't feel old when it was called M09 for over half of 2010. It doesn't explicitly say that, but when you think about it, that is what it is actually trying to say. Do the same crap except the product is released June vs July, then you get a product that is active for most of 2009 and less of 2010. What this means is that, if the product was called M10 for the majority of 2009, and by the time 2010 rolls around, people have the impression that M10 is still active for the majority of 2010, but they don't realize that M11 will replace it during less than half of the time that it is 2010. It gives the impression that they got ripped off by buying a product with 2010 in its name. As I said the article only holds water for a product released in JULY, and not any other month. I don't know what they would have said if core sets were released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.
No, the reason I don't get it is that you haven't given any reason why completely unrelated games absolutely have to have the exact same naming convention. You have also failed to explain why you continually refuse to accept the explanation WotC themselves have given. You also haven't explained what those initials stand for, despite it apparently being vital to your argument. All you've done is repeat ad nauseum the mechanics of your proposed naming convention, which I understood perfectly from the start.
So what? The reason they do it this way (you want a link? Here you go) is so that they're not selling a product advertised as "2012" in 2013. That applies just as well if they're selling it for a couple of weeks more in 2012 than they are in 2013. This just highlights the flaw in your argument, you assume that it is vital that the period in which the product is for sale the longest must be the period for which it is named, but do not make any attempt to explain why this would be good business practice, and when you're splitting hairs over a matter of weeks, I'd say it is most certainly not good business practice.
So selling a product named blah blah 2013 in April 2012 a good business idea? Hmm, 9 months in 2012 and 3 months in 2013. So a blah blah 2013 product will be in 2013 for 3 months out of 12. It makes my claim of the midyear naming convention makes more sense, and that is what WOTC is doing too. If WOTC released core sets in April, much like they have done with core sets older than 8th edition, they would have called the current one Magic 2011 rather than Magic 2012. As I said, they are maximizing the amount of time that M13 will be "in the season" when it is actually 2013.
You know what? Since you don't know what MLB and NBA are, I will give you 2 images.
EA and 2k have been releasing sports games for over a decade, well EA released sports games for over a decade and 2k started to release sports games since 2001ish. Their naming conventions consisted of, for the release of the 2011 product, Madden 12, NHL 12, EA didn't sell a Basketball nor Baseball product this year, and 2k has NBA 2k12, and MLB 2k12, which will release Q1 of 2012. 2k didn't sell a hockey and football product this year. Q1 is the first quarter of the year, if you don't know that already. Of course you wouldn't know, since sports video games and sports in general are a mystery to you.
Well if WOTC released core sets in February as opposed to July, let's say and called the set released February 2013, Magic 2014, for the argument they used, "just so the set feels new", then they did something really stupid. Why? The set will only be in 2014 for a month and a bit, and the product is already replaced by a Magic 2015. In essence, the product is too new for most of the time, and people would have the assumption that the product will be active way throughout the 2014 year, but little do they realize that M15 already replaced it. So my claim of the midyear thing makes the most sense, which makes the product the most fresh, without making it too old or without expiring it too early. That is what WOTC and that article of yours is saying. They want to keep the product new and fresh, and the never mentioned their naming convention if they had released the product in Q1 and Q2 of the calendar year.
No, I don't understand, because they are completely different games made by completely different companies. I have no idea what MLB and NBA stand for, but I do know that Yugioh doesn't have a Standard format. So I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have always done, but I don't understand why you think it's at all related to Magic. The reason is marketing, because the product will continue to be sold in 2013, and it's not so precise as a midyear cutoff. They have stated this!
As long as you don't know what NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL stands for, you wouldn't understand what I am saying. I am comparing the naming conventions, and NOT the games themselves. That is the reason why you don't get it.
NBA 2k has the annual naming convention. Magic core sets also have an annual naming convention. It doesn't matter if one was a video game and the other a card game. I'm comparing Yugioh to Magic for the sake of the naming convention. One is released in March annually, and the other in July. That is why Yugioh called theirs "Starter Deck 2011", well at least the Japanese version anyway, and Magic called theirs 2012 core set, despite both released in 2011, because one was released before midyear and the other was release after midyear to maximize the amount of time the name in the product matches the year that it currently is in the season, or should I call it in "I don't understand sports" terminology, standard legal.
If it wasn't as precise as a midyear cutoff, and they released core sets in June 14, 2013 let's say, and called it 2014 core set, the set would be in existence most of the time in 2013 than it is in 2014, before 2015 core set replaced it.
Eh, they should just release core sets at the start of the year. Or, better yet, Do a yearly "sneak preview" launch in time for Christmas so that people can get a winter prerelease event in, and everyone can demand the product as presents that winter.
Even better would be if they just made the core set much more of a constant, where a large but finite amount of it is printed, with the idea that a new core set is released/updated when that print run sells out. This might only be updated every 2-3 years, and thus the cards provide more consistency for the players, and value for the collectors, and less overprint for the stability and quality of the long-term game. Then they could just go back to the premise of editions, and we'd change the number as the edition increased.
I think they wanted the block expansions to be released during the height in tournament attendance, which is in the American school years, which makes the core set released in the summer holidays, which is why core sets are the third sets to be released in the year. To be honest I think core sets should mark the start of a tournament season, just so that when Worlds comes in, they have 7 sets to work with rather than 5.
I don't really mind the current core set naming convention, and I sort of like it when WOTC releases 4 magic sets per year, and making the core sets annual would make the pattern more consistent, with 3 block sets and a core set. The problem I am having is some people here saying that Magic is 20 years old just because there is the number 2013 in the name. MAGIC IS STILL 19 YEARS OLD PEOPLES. I also think WOTC is making the same mistake of celebrating the Platinum 19th anniversary.
Like I said, a third grader who skipped a grade in the past does not make him 8 to 9 years old. Likewise, a person who failed a grade, which rarely happens anymore, doesn't make that person any younger either.
It's also sort of like the entire Y2K thing, where we were all celebrating the turn of the millennium when 1999 became 2000, then we all realized the turn of the millennium was from 2000 to 2001. As I recall, there's no such think as 0 AD or 0 BCE, so that's why there was that mistake, just because the 19xx changed into 20xx.
No, it's so that during the first half of 2013 it doesn't give the impression of an obsolete product. They explained this when M10 was announced. I don't see how Yugioh could have anything to do with anything.
In yugioh, they name the starter decks Starter deck 2007, Starter Deck 2008 etc etc, and the current one now is starter deck 2011, and it was released in the year 2011. It is the fact that it was released in March gives them the reason to call it Starter Deck 2011. Magic 2012 is released July 2011, which is, by my rules, past the midyear line. So it must be called Magic 2012 and not Magic 2011. Understand now?
I'll give you an easier one. MLB 2k11 is released March 2011. NBA 2k12 is released October 2011. NBA 2k12 is not called NBA 2k11 because the game is released past the midyear line. That way, this ensures that M13 will be standard legal for 2013 for more than half of 2013. If a product is released directly on July 1 2013, I'd still call it blah blah 2014, but if it were to be released June 30, I would call it blah blah 2013.
Maybe M13 will stay in rotation for two years, thus finally sinking up the release of M14 with 2014.
Heck, I just wish the damn core sets always stayed for two years instead of one. Too many dang cards being printed!
Gah, I think the naming convention is like this. If the product is released before midyear, January 1 to June 30, use the year that the product is released in. If the product is released after midyear, July 1 to December 31, use the year that is one year ahead of the current year.
So in essence, since Magic core sets are released in July, it makes sense to call a set released in 2012, Magic 2013. In Yugioh, the Japanese starter decks are released in March, so their 2011 starter deck is called, "Starter Deck 2011". The American localization calls it Starter Deck Dawn of the XYZ, and they even have the set prefix YS11, as in Yugioh Starter 2011, despite it releasing it in July, just because the Japanese version was called Starter Deck 2011, with set prefix YSD6, just because it was the 6th starter deck, ever since they had their first one in 2006.
I for sure don't think one intro pack will be about double face cards, and I don't think there will be a double face card in any of the intro packs. If there aren't any in ISD, there probably won't be any here, and the cover card for the R/G intro pack does NOT look like a werewolf. It is too red and devily to me. I haven't seen any werewolves have fire all over their hands either.
So this is what I think. There are 2 new mechanics right? At least I think there is going to be 2, so that means, 2 of the 5 will each be based on each of the 2 mechanics. I think there is going to be one based off devils, and demons as a whole, and another one based off zombies. The last one is probably based off the humans' dark side, if you know what I mean. If there were a werewolf one, the deck needs 0 DFCs in it, as adding DFCs into intro decks just doesn't cut it.
Sorry guys, but I don't think there is going to be a werewolf Intro Pack, since you can't separate the word Werewolf with Double Face Card in this block.
Another proof that the R/G is NOT a werewolf deck is the fact that there isn't a werewolf on the cover, unless it is a werewolf all day, all night deck, then I highly doubt it, considering how the coloration of the card frame shows that it is the day side, rather than the night side, and if you look closely, that card isn't even a DFC at all. If it were a werewolf, and by that picture, that card doesn't even remotely resemble a human at all, then the card borders should be darker, to reflect the night side of the double face card. As I said, they won't showcase a non-werewolf in a werewolf deck.
I think that some of you associating the R/G deck to be a werewolf deck for the sole fact that it is R/G and that werewolves are R/G. Remember that all werewolf decks are R/G and all R/G decks aren't werewolf decks.
Imagine this scenario. "Yeah, um we felt bad that we screwed you over with no DFCs for AVR so we will print double FACE cards for M13".
... and make it foil only, and printed only with the foil sheet lol.
"Magic Designer by day, Goalie by night"
Which gives me an idea for a DFC... hmmmm.
Before you say anything, yes, I know it's a different Ryan Miller, so you can sit down now.
Considering they have a plati... ahem urban camoflage looking logo, it is looking like they are going to celebrate their twenti.. ahem nineteenth birthday.
They would have to have an Announcing M13 announcement anyway, at least it is out of the way, and we don't have to worry about it. When I first saw it, I was like YEAAAHHH M13, I ALREADY KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE M13 YEAAAAH, then I kept staring at the logo and wondering why a the color was grey, and realized that it could have something to do with magic being 20 years old, then looked at the 10th anniversary, which was 8th edition release, which was released in 2003, and looked at the release date of M13, which says 2012, and I was like, wait a minute... Then I got anal over people claiming that M13 celebrates the 20th anniversary, because it doesn't.
At least we should be celebrating M13 as the fifteenth core set to be released haha. If you count Alpha and Beta as separate core sets. If you count Alpha and Beta as one core set, then M14 would be a bigger celebration, since it is 20 years of magic, and the 15th core set to be released.
I only used the yugioh and MLB comparisons just because they were released in Q1 of the year, to show you, that if MTG core sets were to be released in Q1, they would use the year that it is released in rather than the year after. That was what I was trying to say, because releasing a product that is one year ahead during Q1 is bad business practice.
I created a model as to what WOTC would have named the sets if it were released, and that is, Current year before July 1, and next year after and including July 1. I don't know if that's the model that everybody uses, but considering I don't have any data points for stuff released April, May or June, I don't have a say in Q2. If something were to be released Q2, it is up to the company as to what they want to do with the product.
Where the other companies come in is based on the fact that just like WOTC, they are using the same model because of good business practice. So using sports games, and Yugioh, I can create a hypothetical situation as to what WOTC would have named core sets if they released them in April for example.
I mentioned that Yugioh starter deck Dawn of the XYZ set prefix is called YS11 when it was released July 2011, while it would make sense to call it YS12. The fact is, the Japanese version was released March 2011, and changing its name would confuse the consumer and would make the consumer think that Starter Deck Dawn of the xyz correlated to Starter Deck 2012, while in reality, it is based off Starter Deck 2011. That is the exception to the rule. It's like saying a baseball game with the season starting early in the year saying MLB 12 is released in July in another region, does not make that game MLB 13. The game is still MLB 12. You don't change the year number when you port an existing game to a different system, or make another localization of an existing game, despite it releasing near the end of the year, while the original was released in the beginning of the year.
By the way, I edited my post, so you should re-read it.
As I recall, WOTC got the coreset annual naming conventions from Madden NFL video game series, and car companies, so don't go telling me that what unrelated companies do, aka a sports video game company, and a car company, doesn't affect what WOTC does, because in fact, it did. They also said something about this naming convention being industry standard? Perhaps you have heard of it?
Someone should really make a cake for the release of M13 core set that says "Happy nineteenth anniversary", then the staff of WOTC realizes that it is indeed 19 years of magic, and then they get embarrassed for celebrating a 19th anniversary with a bunch of 20s everywhere in the room. Sort of like how we all screwed up and celebrated the turn of the millennium when 1999 ended and 2000 started, but the fact is, that 0AD never existed, and the first AD year is 1 AD, so 2000 year later would be 2001, which is the actual year that is the turn of the millennium.
FFS, the policy they say the use only APPLIES TO A PRODUCT RELEASED IN FREAKIN JULY. The above thing that MARO said applies to core sets that are RELEASED IN JULY, and the fact is, they don't care to explain how they would name a core set if they released it in April, because the fact is, CORE SETS ARE WILL NEVER BE RELEASED IN ANY OTHER MONTH OTHER THAN IN JULY.
What they said would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT if it were released in APRIL, considering that a Magic 2010 would only be in 2010 for only 3 months, and someone buying a Magic 2010 in May 2010, which is pretty close to the middle of the year with still more than half a year to go, would feel ripped off when the newest product is actually Magic 2011, and Magic 2010 is no longer standard legal.
So what do I do? I give examples of other products, not made by WOTC, that also have the annual naming conventions, and so far, anything released Q1 will have the same year attached to the name, and anything released Q3 and Q4 will have one year ahead attached to its name. I can't saying anything for Q2, which is April, May, June, but that is how other companies do it. That article says NOTHING about how they would name a core set if they were to release it in either Q1 or Q2 of the calendar year.
This, is why you don't get it. You seem to apply that article to a product that is released any time of the year, but that article only has a July release in mind. Do the same crap to a product released in February 20th every year, and the consumer would be angry for playing a product that will expire just when they bought it.
I don't have a say for anything released in Q2 of the year, but anything released in June can have the current year or the next year attached to it, depending if the company wants the product to feel new, or if they don't want customers to feel ripped off for buying an old product when there is already a newer one released. If it was released in April or May, for sure, they should be using the current year rather than the next year. Maybe that's why there is not a lot of "annual" products released during Q2 is because they don't have to figure out which year to use.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/27a
Again, this article only affects products released in Q3, that is July, August, September of the calendar year. It has no bearing to what happens when it is released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.
So you were saying that what other companies do does not affect WOTC's core set naming policy? LOLWUT?
I wouldn't say the same for this year's NBA season though haha.
Back to what I was saying. A lot of products have the product name followed by the year on it, and Magic core sets aren't the only products that use this naming convention, which somebody here doesn't even get.
EA sports and 2k sports attach years to their sports video games to denote the year the season of that particular sport is played in. Yugioh did the same thing with their starter decks, such as starter deck 2011, to show that the product is pretty much the starter deck is the latest one.
So this is how it goes.
Yugioh Gold series 2011 released in January 2011
Yugioh Starter Deck 2011 released in March 2011
MLB 2k11 released March 2011
MLB 11: The Show released March 2011
Past midyear mark
NCAA football 12 released July 2011
Magic 2012 core set released July 2011
Madden 12 released August 2011
NHL 12 released September 2011
FIFA 12 released September-October 2011
NBA 2k12 released October 2011
So as I said, releasing an annual product every february and naming it one year ahead is the stupidest idea, just because "it makes it more new". No it doesn't. It makes the consumer think that the product will be active for most of the year that the product says it is. If the next product were to replace it, let's say Magic 2015 replaced Magic 2014 in February 2014, then the consumers would feel ripped off that they bought an old product disguised as a new product.
If you don't get it, imagine this sceanario. Core sets are released February. It is now April of that same year. You buy Magic 2014 thinking that it is the newest product, but NOPE, M14 is no longer standard legal, and you should be buying M15, despite it being the year 2014. This scenario wouldn't ring true if the product were to be released Q3 and Q4 of that year, since a 2015 product in 2014 would be only be there for less than half a year, and the fact that the product is active for most of the year that the product says it is the year of.
Also someone's article only mentions the naming convention when the product is being released in July, and what they say ONLY MAKES SENSE FOR A PRODUCT RELEASED IN JULY. Release it in February, and that argument of "hey, they product would feel so new", wouldn't make sense anymore. Hence why products with a year attached to the name released in January, February, and March use the same year that the product is released in. I haven't seen any annual product released in Q2 of the calendar year, so I can't say anything about that.
The only reason why the article says what it says is because M10 will be in store shelves for more than half of 2010, and less than half of 2009, so the product wouldn't feel old when it was called M09 for over half of 2010. It doesn't explicitly say that, but when you think about it, that is what it is actually trying to say. Do the same crap except the product is released June vs July, then you get a product that is active for most of 2009 and less of 2010. What this means is that, if the product was called M10 for the majority of 2009, and by the time 2010 rolls around, people have the impression that M10 is still active for the majority of 2010, but they don't realize that M11 will replace it during less than half of the time that it is 2010. It gives the impression that they got ripped off by buying a product with 2010 in its name. As I said the article only holds water for a product released in JULY, and not any other month. I don't know what they would have said if core sets were released in Q1 or Q2 of the year.
So selling a product named blah blah 2013 in April 2012 a good business idea? Hmm, 9 months in 2012 and 3 months in 2013. So a blah blah 2013 product will be in 2013 for 3 months out of 12. It makes my claim of the midyear naming convention makes more sense, and that is what WOTC is doing too. If WOTC released core sets in April, much like they have done with core sets older than 8th edition, they would have called the current one Magic 2011 rather than Magic 2012. As I said, they are maximizing the amount of time that M13 will be "in the season" when it is actually 2013.
You know what? Since you don't know what MLB and NBA are, I will give you 2 images.
EA and 2k have been releasing sports games for over a decade, well EA released sports games for over a decade and 2k started to release sports games since 2001ish. Their naming conventions consisted of, for the release of the 2011 product, Madden 12, NHL 12, EA didn't sell a Basketball nor Baseball product this year, and 2k has NBA 2k12, and MLB 2k12, which will release Q1 of 2012. 2k didn't sell a hockey and football product this year. Q1 is the first quarter of the year, if you don't know that already. Of course you wouldn't know, since sports video games and sports in general are a mystery to you.
Well if WOTC released core sets in February as opposed to July, let's say and called the set released February 2013, Magic 2014, for the argument they used, "just so the set feels new", then they did something really stupid. Why? The set will only be in 2014 for a month and a bit, and the product is already replaced by a Magic 2015. In essence, the product is too new for most of the time, and people would have the assumption that the product will be active way throughout the 2014 year, but little do they realize that M15 already replaced it. So my claim of the midyear thing makes the most sense, which makes the product the most fresh, without making it too old or without expiring it too early. That is what WOTC and that article of yours is saying. They want to keep the product new and fresh, and the never mentioned their naming convention if they had released the product in Q1 and Q2 of the calendar year.
As long as you don't know what NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL stands for, you wouldn't understand what I am saying. I am comparing the naming conventions, and NOT the games themselves. That is the reason why you don't get it.
NBA 2k has the annual naming convention. Magic core sets also have an annual naming convention. It doesn't matter if one was a video game and the other a card game. I'm comparing Yugioh to Magic for the sake of the naming convention. One is released in March annually, and the other in July. That is why Yugioh called theirs "Starter Deck 2011", well at least the Japanese version anyway, and Magic called theirs 2012 core set, despite both released in 2011, because one was released before midyear and the other was release after midyear to maximize the amount of time the name in the product matches the year that it currently is in the season, or should I call it in "I don't understand sports" terminology, standard legal.
If it wasn't as precise as a midyear cutoff, and they released core sets in June 14, 2013 let's say, and called it 2014 core set, the set would be in existence most of the time in 2013 than it is in 2014, before 2015 core set replaced it.
I think they wanted the block expansions to be released during the height in tournament attendance, which is in the American school years, which makes the core set released in the summer holidays, which is why core sets are the third sets to be released in the year. To be honest I think core sets should mark the start of a tournament season, just so that when Worlds comes in, they have 7 sets to work with rather than 5.
I don't really mind the current core set naming convention, and I sort of like it when WOTC releases 4 magic sets per year, and making the core sets annual would make the pattern more consistent, with 3 block sets and a core set. The problem I am having is some people here saying that Magic is 20 years old just because there is the number 2013 in the name. MAGIC IS STILL 19 YEARS OLD PEOPLES. I also think WOTC is making the same mistake of celebrating the Platinum 19th anniversary.
Like I said, a third grader who skipped a grade in the past does not make him 8 to 9 years old. Likewise, a person who failed a grade, which rarely happens anymore, doesn't make that person any younger either.
It's also sort of like the entire Y2K thing, where we were all celebrating the turn of the millennium when 1999 became 2000, then we all realized the turn of the millennium was from 2000 to 2001. As I recall, there's no such think as 0 AD or 0 BCE, so that's why there was that mistake, just because the 19xx changed into 20xx.
In yugioh, they name the starter decks Starter deck 2007, Starter Deck 2008 etc etc, and the current one now is starter deck 2011, and it was released in the year 2011. It is the fact that it was released in March gives them the reason to call it Starter Deck 2011. Magic 2012 is released July 2011, which is, by my rules, past the midyear line. So it must be called Magic 2012 and not Magic 2011. Understand now?
I'll give you an easier one. MLB 2k11 is released March 2011. NBA 2k12 is released October 2011. NBA 2k12 is not called NBA 2k11 because the game is released past the midyear line. That way, this ensures that M13 will be standard legal for 2013 for more than half of 2013. If a product is released directly on July 1 2013, I'd still call it blah blah 2014, but if it were to be released June 30, I would call it blah blah 2013.
Gah, I think the naming convention is like this. If the product is released before midyear, January 1 to June 30, use the year that the product is released in. If the product is released after midyear, July 1 to December 31, use the year that is one year ahead of the current year.
So in essence, since Magic core sets are released in July, it makes sense to call a set released in 2012, Magic 2013. In Yugioh, the Japanese starter decks are released in March, so their 2011 starter deck is called, "Starter Deck 2011". The American localization calls it Starter Deck Dawn of the XYZ, and they even have the set prefix YS11, as in Yugioh Starter 2011, despite it releasing it in July, just because the Japanese version was called Starter Deck 2011, with set prefix YSD6, just because it was the 6th starter deck, ever since they had their first one in 2006.